This is a complete sample Build Report on a real Montana parcel.
Every figure below was produced by the live analysis pipeline from official public data — nothing here is mocked up. Owner name and assessed values are withheld on this public page. This is exactly what you receive when you run a report on your own property.
Check your own propertyMontana Build Report
S08, T15 N, R08 E, M & B IN SEC 5, 6, 7 & 10
160 acres · Cascade County, Montana · prepared for: build a home
Prepared by Montana Build Report · Data accessed September 17, 2026 · analysis run 14 days ago · Parcel 02245708202010000
Build report summary
Preliminary build outlook
MORE INVESTIGATION NEEDED
The available data raises several matters that should be resolved before purchase or design. That may reflect real physical constraints, or it may reflect how little the public record says about this parcel. The findings below distinguish between the two.
0
Favorable
10
To investigate
1
Constraints
8
Context
What drove this
- Most of the complexity on this parcel comes from septic & wastewater, flood, access.
- 1 finding rose to the level of a potential constraint rather than something merely worth checking.
- Several categories depend on county records that are not published in machine-readable form. We name the office to call for each rather than inferring a rule.
Build complexity
62 / 100
Elevated complexity
Higher means more to work through, not a worse property. 21% of this score is data uncertainty rather than a known physical constraint.
- Septic & wastewater
- 16 / 16
- Flooddata uncertain
- 8.4 / 12
- Access
- 7.8 / 12
- Soilsdata uncertain
- 6.2 / 10
- Waterdata uncertain
- 6.2 / 10
- Terrain
- 6 / 12
- Wildfiredata uncertain
- 5 / 8
- Wetlands & hydrography
- 4.6 / 10
- Zoning, planning & permittingdata uncertain
- 2 / 10
Preliminary septic outlook: significant mapped limitations
Flood hazard here has not been determined
A mapped local road reaches this parcel
Shallow bedrock is mapped · A seasonal high water table is mapped · Soils with shrink-swell potential are mapped
Water outlook: Not scored — data too thin
Roughly 24% of the parcel is mapped below 10% slope · About 23% of the parcel is mapped at 30% slope or steeper
Wildfire exposure: Elevated landscape exposure
Mapped wetland or riparian features on the parcel
Build Complexity is not a grade and not a buildability rating. It counts how many things about this parcel are likely to take work, cost money, or need a professional to resolve. A high score can describe an outstanding property — a creek, mature trees, a hillside view and forty acres of privacy will score higher than a flat, featureless lot on a paved road. Every point is traceable to a finding you can read below; nothing contributes to it that is not shown. Missing data raises the score rather than lowering it, because an information gap is a real cost and never a clean bill of health.
Section 1
Parcel
- Parcel / geocode
- 02245708202010000
- County
- Cascade County
- Acreage
- 160 ac
- Coordinates
- 47.07751, -110.74982
- Township / range / section
- 15 N · 08 E · 08
- Legal description
- S08, T15 N, R08 E, M & B IN SEC 5, 6, 7 & 10
- Subdivision
- Not recorded
- Certificate of survey
- Not recorded
- Property type
- Vacant Land
- Assessor access class
- Not recorded
- Tax year
- 2026
- Irrigated acres
- Not recorded
- Forest acres
- 111.05
- Grazing acres
- 48.95
160 acres in Cascade County
CONTEXTThe cadastral record lists this parcel at 160 acres, described as S08, T15 N, R08 E, M & B IN SEC 5, 6, 7 & 10.
Why it matters. Acreage drives almost everything downstream — whether a well and septic system are required, what setbacks apply, whether the parcel could be divided, and how the county treats it for subdivision review.
Next step. Confirm acreage and boundaries against a survey or title commitment. Cadastral acreage is calculated from assessment mapping and commonly differs from a surveyed figure.
Based on: Montana Cadastral Framework parcel record.
The cadastral framework is an assessment and taxation record, not a survey. Boundaries are mapped to assessor accuracy and routinely differ from a surveyed line by feet and occasionally by much more. Ownership reflects the last processed transfer, so a recent sale may not appear. It carries no easements, no covenants, and no legal-access information.
Section 2
Terrain
Elevation, relief, slope and aspect computed from the USGS 3D Elevation Program, sampled across the parcel boundary.
Gentle ground is present but limited at or below 10% slope — roughly 38.2 of 160 acres, based on 376 elevation samples inside the mapped boundary. The parcel falls 410 feet from its high point to its low point, which is significant relief for site design, driveway grades and utility runs. The largest connected area of gentle ground is approximately 26.81 acres, which indicates whether that ground is in one usable piece or scattered across the parcel. Slope alone does not establish that a structure can be built at any particular spot — soils, groundwater, setbacks, access and county requirements all bear on that, and none of them is visible in an elevation surface.
Elevation range
4,931ft
Feet above sea level.
Highest point
5,342ft
Feet above sea level.
Total relief
410ft
Total elevation change across the parcel.
Median slope
16.9%
Mean slope
20.2%
Sampled from a 1 m 3DEP raster.
Steep extent (95th pct)
46.5%
Reported at the 95th percentile rather than the single steepest sample, because an isolated maximum on an elevation surface is usually a ditch edge or a data artefact rather than real ground.
At or below 10% slope
23.9%
Share of the parcel at or below 10% mapped slope.
Dominant aspect
W
Predominant downslope direction. Relevant to snow retention, solar gain, and how early ground dries in spring.
Slope distribution across the parcel
- 0–5%
- 12.2%~19.57 ac
- 5–10%
- 11.7%~18.72 ac
- 10–20%
- 37%~59.15 ac
- 20–30%
- 15.7%~25.11 ac
- 30% and over
- 23.4%~37.45 ac
Largest connected area at or below 10% slope
26.8ac
Largest connected run of sampled nodes at or below 10% mapped slope. An indication of whether gentle ground is coherent or scattered — not a building envelope.
Roughly 24% of the parcel is mapped below 10% slope
WORTH INVESTIGATINGMapped slope from USGS 3DEP puts 23.9% of the parcel at or below 10%, with a median of 16.9% and 410 feet of total relief. The largest connected area of gentle ground is approximately 26.81 acres.
Why it matters. Steeper ground raises the cost of nearly everything physical: excavation, retaining, driveway grade and switchbacks, drainfield siting, and winter access. It rarely prevents building; it reliably changes the budget.
Next step. Walk the parcel with a builder or excavator before purchase and identify a specific building envelope and driveway route rather than assuming one exists.
Based on: 376 elevation samples inside the parcel boundary on a 41 m grid.
About 23% of the parcel is mapped at 30% slope or steeper
WORTH INVESTIGATING23.4% of sampled ground, roughly 37.45 acres, is mapped at or above 30% slope.
Why it matters. Slopes above 30% are where engineered foundations, retaining structures and switchback driveways start to appear, and where several Montana counties impose additional review. They also constrain drainfield placement, which is regulated by slope.
Next step. If the steep ground is where the view is — which is usually why it matters — get an excavator's opinion on access and a designer's view on foundation type before you commit.
Based on: Slope distribution across the sampled grid.
Predominantly W-facing ground
CONTEXTThe parcel's dominant mapped aspect is W.
Why it matters. South and west-facing ground sheds snow earlier and gains more winter sun, which generally helps access and heating but cures vegetation earlier in fire season.
Based on: Aspect computed from the elevation surface.
Sampled at 376 interior points on a 41 m grid from 3DEP rasters at 1 m resolution. A bare-earth elevation surface. It does not know about fill, cut, existing grading, or anything built since the collection was flown. Slope computed from it describes the mapped landform, not a graded building pad, and cannot see a soft spot, a spring, or bedrock an inch below the surface.
Section 3
Soils
USDA NRCS soil survey data for this parcel, translated into what it means for building and for onsite wastewater.
The dominant mapped soil is Nikat-Dutchhollow, occasionally flooded-Tetonville families, complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes covering roughly 44% of the parcel where we sampled it (25 points), with Nikat as its principal component. It is mapped as well drained, which is generally workable ground for building and for an onsite system. Soil mapping at this scale describes a landscape pattern rather than a specific building site: the smallest unit NRCS reliably maps is several acres, so a single house envelope can sit entirely within an inclusion the map never shows. Treat this as the reason to place test pits thoughtfully, not as a result that replaces them.
Hydrologic soil groups
B, C, C/D, D
Hydrologic soil group describes infiltration behavior: A soils drain freely, D soils shed water.
Drainage classes mapped
Well drained, Very poorly drained, Somewhat poorly drained
Shallowest restrictive layer
14in
Shallowest mapped depth to a restrictive layer across the parcel, in inches.
Map units on parcel
6
Coverage measured at 25 sampled points.
| Soil map unit | Coverage | Principal component | Drainage | Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nikat-Dutchhollow, occasionally flooded-Tetonville families, complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes | 44% | Nikat35% | Well drained | B |
| Ettienridge, stony-Checkerboard, very stony-Cowcoulee families, complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes | 32% | Ettienridge35% | Well drained | C |
| Maiden, stony-Lap, very stony families-Rock outcrop complex, 45 to 70 percent slopes | 20% | Maiden40% | Well drained | C |
| Ettienridge, extremely stony-Checkerboard, rubbly families-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes | 4% | Ettienridge55% | Well drained | C |
| Cowcoulee, stony-Ettienridge families, complex, 35 to 70 percent slopes | < sample | Cowcoulee45% | Well drained | C |
| Redchief, very stony-Duckcreek-Cheadle, extremely stony families, complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes | < sample | Redchief30% | Well drained | C |
Construction considerations
- Mapped soils include material with meaningful shrink-swell potential. Expansive soil is a routine foundation design problem rather than a deal-breaker, but it is one an engineer should price rather than discover.
- Shallow bedrock affects excavation for foundations, utility trenches and water lines. It is frequently the largest single surprise in a rural site-work budget.
- A high seasonal water table bears on basement feasibility, foundation drainage and frost design.
- Hydrologic group D soils are present, which run off rather than infiltrate. Expect stormwater and driveway drainage to need real design attention.
- Mapped soils are moderately to highly erodible, which matters during construction disturbance and for long-term driveway and cut-slope stability.
6 distinct soil map units intersect this parcel. Variable soils across a single property are normal in Montana and are a reason to place test pits where the building envelope will actually go, rather than at the easiest point of access.
Dominant mapped soil: Nikat-Dutchhollow, occasionally flooded-Tetonville families, complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes
CONTEXTNikat is the principal mapped component, hydrologic group B, mapped as well drained. 6 soil map units intersect the parcel in total, spanning hydrologic groups B, C, C/D, D.
Why it matters. Soil type drives foundation design, excavation cost, drainage behavior and — most consequentially in rural Montana — whether a conventional septic system will work.
Next step. Use the soil map to decide where to dig test pits, not as a substitute for digging them.
Based on: 6 SSURGO map units intersecting the parcel.
Shallow bedrock is mapped
WORTH INVESTIGATINGThe mapped soil components include bedrock within about 40 inches of the surface.
Why it matters. Shallow rock is one of the largest and most common surprises in a rural site-work budget. It affects foundation excavation, utility trenching, water line depth and frequently rules out a conventional drainfield.
Next step. Have test pits dug where you intend to build, not merely where a machine can reach easily. An excavator can establish this in a morning for a fraction of what discovering it later costs.
Based on: SSURGO component restriction depths.
A seasonal high water table is mapped
WORTH INVESTIGATINGMapped soil components indicate a seasonal high water table within roughly four feet of the surface.
Why it matters. A high water table is the most frequent reason a Montana site needs an engineered rather than conventional septic system, and it bears directly on basement feasibility and foundation drainage. It is also seasonal, so a dry-season site visit can miss it entirely.
Next step. Ask the county sanitarian what they have seen in the immediate area, and time a site evaluation for spring where possible.
Based on: SSURGO soil moisture and water table records.
Soils with shrink-swell potential are mapped
WORTH INVESTIGATINGAt least one mapped component has a linear extensibility high enough to indicate expansive behavior.
Why it matters. Expansive soil moves as it wets and dries, which is a routine foundation design problem when known in advance and an expensive structural one when discovered afterwards.
Next step. Flag this for whoever designs the foundation, and consider a geotechnical investigation before finalizing the design.
Based on: SSURGO linear extensibility values.
SSURGO is mapped for land-management planning at roughly 1:24,000. The smallest reliably mapped unit is a few acres, so a single building envelope can sit entirely inside a soil inclusion the map never shows. It is not a geotechnical investigation and not a percolation test, and NRCS says so directly. Its septic and construction ratings are screening ratings, not determinations.
Section 4
Septic & wastewater
A screening view of onsite wastewater feasibility, and the authority that actually decides.
Preliminary septic outlook
Significant mapped limitations
Several mapped soil characteristics point toward real constraints on a conventional system. This does not mean a system is impossible — engineered alternatives exist across Montana — but it does mean cost and feasibility should be established before purchase, not after.
What the mapped soils indicate
- Part of the parcel is mapped with restricted drainage, which bears directly on how a drainfield performs.
- A restrictive layer is mapped at approximately 14 inches, which can limit the vertical separation a conventional drainfield requires.
- Shallow bedrock is mapped, which commonly drives excavation cost and can rule out a conventional system in favor of an engineered alternative.
- A seasonal high water table is mapped within about four feet of the surface, which is one of the most common reasons a Montana site needs an alternative system.
- NRCS rates the mapped soils as limited for septic absorption fields. That rating is a screening indicator, not a determination.
A licensed site evaluator and the county environmental health authority make the actual determination. Nothing in this section approves or rejects a septic system, and no soil map can.
County sanitation authority
Cascade City-County Health Department (CCHD) Environmental Health
Preliminary septic outlook: significant mapped limitations
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTPart of the parcel is mapped with restricted drainage, which bears directly on how a drainfield performs. A restrictive layer is mapped at approximately 14 inches, which can limit the vertical separation a conventional drainfield requires. Shallow bedrock is mapped, which commonly drives excavation cost and can rule out a conventional system in favor of an engineered alternative. A seasonal high water table is mapped within about four feet of the surface, which is one of the most common reasons a Montana site needs an alternative system. NRCS rates the mapped soils as limited for septic absorption fields. That rating is a screening indicator, not a determination.
Why it matters. In most of rural Montana there is no sewer, so the property's value and its buildability both depend on an onsite system being approvable. A licensed site evaluator and the county sanitarian make that determination — a soil map cannot.
Next step. Engage a licensed site evaluator and confirm requirements with Cascade City-County Health Department (CCHD) Environmental Health (406-454-6950).
Based on: NRCS soil interpretation ratings and mapped soil characteristics, screened against common Montana onsite-system constraints.
Need a licensed site evaluator or septic installer?
Find septic professionalsSection 5
Water
Well depth, yield, groundwater and water rights — analyzed by Montana Water Report rather than duplicated here.
Water outlook
Not scored — data too thin
A single combined score is not shown for this property because comparable well coverage is too thin to support one. The component ratings below are reported individually so you can see exactly which parts of the picture are solid and which are not.
Nearby wells analyzed
166
Median well depth
158ft
Median recorded depth of comparable nearby wells.
Median reported yield
10GPM
Static water level
72ft
Aquifer
Mesozoic-Paleozoic Sedimentary Rock Aquifers
Potential water rights
4
Potential associations only. Montana publishes no authoritative parcel-to-water-right link.
Regulatory flags: A closure covering this property is recorded as not yet in force. It does not restrict appropriation today., 4 potentially associated rights found, with items needing verification..
Water outlook: Not scored — data too thin
WORTH INVESTIGATING166 nearby well records analyzed. Median recorded depth 158 ft, typically 100–225 ft. Median reported yield 10 GPM.
Why it matters. Well depth drives drilling cost almost linearly, and yield determines whether a household and any irrigation can be served. Neighboring records are an indication of what a well here would encounter, never a promise.
Next step. See the full analysis and the underlying well logs at Montana Water Report.
Based on: Summary provided by Montana Water Report.
Section 6
Wildfire
Exposure, fuels and fire history — analyzed by Montana Fire Report rather than duplicated here.
Wildfire exposure
Elevated landscape exposure
Our weighting of mapped burn probability, flame-length class and canopy cover sampled across this parcel. Describes the landscape, not any structure on it.
Annual chance of a large fire
1 in 1,000
DNRC's modeled annual chance of a fire over 250 acres burning here. Published as a return interval, quoted as published.
Burn probability
Low
DNRC's five-step class for the likelihood of a fire larger than 250 acres reaching this ground.
Flame length class
12 – 40 ft
DNRC publishes flame length in classed ranges rather than as a single figure, so the range is quoted as published.
Canopy cover
37%
Mean of sampled points inside the parcel boundary.
Fires within 10 miles
23
Distinct recorded perimeters, deduplicated across reporting agencies.
The largest recorded fire within ten miles was the Tillinghast fire of 1919, at 30,700 acres. A perimeter records where fire reached, not how severely it burned within that line.
Montana DNRC's fuel, canopy and burn-probability layers were finalized 20 December 2019, built from LANDFIRE Remap 2016 and updated for disturbances through 2019. Vegetation that has burned, been logged, or been thinned since then is not reflected. Treat these as landscape context, not a current description of the ground.
Wildfire exposure: Elevated landscape exposure
WORTH INVESTIGATINGDNRC models roughly a 1 in 1,000 annual chance of a fire larger than 250 acres reaching this ground, rising to 1 in 500 on part of the parcel. Modeled flame length is mostly in the 12 – 40 ft class. Canopy cover averages 37%. 23 recorded fire perimeters within ten miles, most recently 2021. The largest was the Tillinghast fire of 1919, at 30,700 acres.
Why it matters. Exposure describes the landscape, not the house. Post-fire research consistently finds that whether a home survives is driven mostly by the structure itself and the first hundred feet around it — which is the part an owner can change.
Next step. Request the free DNRC home wildfire risk assessment — a local fire professional visits the property, which is the only evaluation that looks at an actual structure. For the fuels, terrain and history behind these figures, run the parcel through Montana Fire Report.
Based on: Montana DNRC's fuel, canopy and burn-probability layers were finalized 20 December 2019, built from LANDFIRE Remap 2016 and updated for disturbances through 2019. Vegetation that has burned, been logged, or been thinned since then is not reflected. Treat these as landscape context, not a current description of the ground.
Section 7
Flood
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, intersected with this parcel boundary.
Flood outlook
Flood hazard here has not been determined
FEMA has mapped this parcel as Zone D, which means no flood study has been carried out. It is not a finding of low risk and it is not a finding of high risk — it is the absence of an answer. Lenders may still require flood insurance at their discretion in a Zone D, and the county floodplain administrator is the authority on whether any local study or known flooding history applies to this ground.
FEMA has mapped this parcel as Zone D across roughly 100% of its area. Zone D is not a low-risk designation — it means no flood study has been performed here, so no federal determination exists in either direction. That is a common outcome in rural Montana and it is a gap in the record rather than a reassurance about the ground. If there is a stream, an irrigation ditch, a swale or an alluvial fan near where you intend to build, the county floodplain administrator is the right first call, and Montana DNRC's floodplain program can say whether a state-level study covers this area. Note also that a lender may still require flood insurance in a Zone D at its own discretion.
Mapped zones
D
Zone D means flood hazard is undetermined — no analysis has been done, which is not the same as low risk.
Flood hazard here has not been determined
WORTH INVESTIGATINGFEMA mapping shows zone D intersecting the parcel boundary.
Why it matters. FEMA has mapped this parcel as Zone D, which means no flood study has been carried out. It is not a finding of low risk and it is not a finding of high risk — it is the absence of an answer. Lenders may still require flood insurance at their discretion in a Zone D, and the county floodplain administrator is the authority on whether any local study or known flooding history applies to this ground.
Next step. Ask the county floodplain administrator whether any local study, known flooding history or local rule applies to this ground, because the FEMA map does not answer the question here. Ask a lender early too: flood insurance can still be required in a Zone D at the lender's discretion.
Based on: Geometric intersection of the parcel boundary with the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer.
A regulatory insurance and floodplain-management map, not a hydrologic study of a specific parcel. Being outside a mapped high-risk zone is not an absence of flood risk — roughly a quarter of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk areas. Unmapped areas carry no determination at all. Local flooding from small drainages, alluvial fans, ice jams and irrigation infrastructure is frequently not modeled.
Section 8
Wetlands & hydrography
Mapped wetlands, streams and riparian features. Mapped features only — never a jurisdictional determination.
Wetland outlook
Mapped wetland or riparian features on the parcel
One or more mapped wetland features fall inside the boundary. This is common on rural Montana acreage and frequently manageable — but it should be resolved by a delineation before you commit to a building envelope, because work in a jurisdictional wetland requires federal authorization.
Approximately 4% of the mapped parcel boundary overlaps mapped wetland features (riverine, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, freshwater emergent wetland). On rural acreage this is common and often entirely workable — the practical consequence is usually that the building envelope, drainfield and driveway need to be sited with the wetland in mind, and that any work touching it needs federal authorization. The National Wetlands Inventory is interpreted from aerial imagery, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states directly that it makes no attempt to define the limits of federal or state jurisdiction. Only a delineation by a qualified consultant, and a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, answers the regulatory question. Mapped hydrography also crosses this parcel, which typically explains the wetland's presence and brings its own setback and water-right questions.
Parcel overlapping wetland
4%
Share of the mapped parcel boundary overlapping mapped wetland polygons. 6 further mapped features are present on the parcel but too small for our coverage sampling to size, so they are not included in this figure — it is a floor, not a total. Both the parcel boundary and the wetland edge are approximate.
Wetland types mapped
Riverine, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Riverine wetland follows a channel and is tied to the stream's behavior. Forested and shrub wetland is frequently a willow or cottonwood bottom. It is the type most often missed by aerial interpretation, in both directions. Emergent wetland is the classic wet meadow or marsh — herbaceous vegetation in saturated ground, often seasonal in Montana.
Hydrography crossing parcel
Dry Fork Belt Creek, unnamed stream
Mapped hydrography crossing the parcel. A mapped channel does not establish an ordinary high-water mark, a setback, or a jurisdictional call — and in Montana it also raises the separate question of whether any associated water right exists.
Mapped hydrography near this parcel
| Feature | Type | Flow | On parcel | Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unnamed | stream | intermittent | No | 213 ft |
| Dry Fork Belt Creek | stream | perennial | Yes | — |
| Dry Fork Belt Creek | stream | perennial | No | 389 ft |
| Sawmill Creek | stream | intermittent | No | 312 ft |
| Unnamed | stream | intermittent | Yes | — |
Mapped wetland or riparian features on the parcel
WORTH INVESTIGATINGApproximately 4% of the parcel overlaps mapped wetland features (Riverine, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Emergent Wetland).
Why it matters. One or more mapped wetland features fall inside the boundary. This is common on rural Montana acreage and frequently manageable — but it should be resolved by a delineation before you commit to a building envelope, because work in a jurisdictional wetland requires federal authorization.
Next step. Commission a wetland delineation before finalizing a building envelope. Work in a jurisdictional wetland requires authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the mapped edge is not the regulated edge.
Based on: Geometric intersection of the parcel with National Wetlands Inventory polygons.
Mapped hydrography crosses this parcel
CONTEXTDry Fork Belt Creek, unnamed stream is mapped crossing the parcel.
Why it matters. Surface water is usually the reason people want the land, and it brings its own questions: setbacks from the ordinary high-water mark, floodplain permitting, bridge or culvert requirements for access, and whether any water right attaches to it.
Next step. Ask specifically whether a water right is associated with the parcel — Montana has no authoritative parcel-to-water-right link, so this needs DNRC and a professional to answer.
Based on: NHDPlus High Resolution flowlines intersecting the parcel.
NWI is photo-interpreted from aerial imagery and is explicitly NOT a jurisdictional wetland determination. USFWS states there is no attempt to define the limits of federal or state jurisdiction. Small wetlands, narrow riparian strips and forested wetlands are systematically under-mapped. Only a delineation by a qualified consultant, and a jurisdictional call by the Army Corps, answers the regulatory question.
Section 9
Access
What mapping can show about physical access — kept rigorously separate from legal access, which no dataset can establish.
Physical access and legal access are different questions
Everything in this section describes mapped, physical routes. Legal access comes from recorded easements, deeded rights of way and plat dedications, none of which appear in any mapping dataset. Confirm legal access through a title commitment.
Hughesville is mapped at or crossing the parcel boundary, with ownership recorded in the area as Federal. The mapped route reaching the parcel is unpaved or of unrecorded ownership. Winter maintenance is worth establishing separately: many Montana rural roads are unmaintained from November to April, and a route that is trivially passable in July can be impassable when you need to reach a job site or get an ambulance in. Legal access is a separate question from physical access, and no mapping dataset can answer it. Recorded easements, deeded rights of way, plat dedications and prescriptive claims live in county records and title work. Confirm legal access through a title commitment before purchase, and where access crosses private ground, have the easement language read by a professional — including whether it permits construction traffic and who is responsible for maintenance.
Mapped road at boundary
Yes
Physical indication only.
Nearest road
Hughesville
Local
Surfaces mapped nearby
Gravel, Dirt
A mapped local road reaches this parcel
WORTH INVESTIGATINGHughesville is mapped at or crossing the parcel boundary, recorded as Federal.
Why it matters. Physical access and legal access are different things, and the difference has ended more Montana land purchases than any other single issue. A road on a map is evidence a route exists. It is not evidence you have the right to use it, that it is maintained, or that it is passable in February.
Next step. Confirm legal access through a title commitment and recorded easements, and ask specifically about winter maintenance responsibility. If access crosses another private parcel, get the easement language read by someone who does this for a living.
Based on: Montana transportation framework road centerlines relative to the parcel boundary.
Access or boundary question worth a professional?
Find a surveyorA centerline geometry and classification dataset. It carries no easement, no recorded right of way, no legal access status, and frequently no maintenance responsibility. A line on this layer reaching a parcel is evidence of a physical route, and is not evidence of a right to use it.
Section 10
Public land & land constraints
Federal, state and tribal land nearby, and mapped conservation easements. Whether any of this is an asset or a constraint depends entirely on what you intend to do.
Public land is mapped nearby (USFS)
CONTEXTSurface management mapping shows USFS land in the immediate vicinity of this parcel.
Why it matters. Whether this is an asset or a constraint depends entirely on what you want. Adjacent public land can mean permanent open space, recreation at the property line, and no future neighbor. It can also mean public traffic, seasonal hunting pressure, wildfire fuel continuity, and rules about what you may do near the boundary. It does not grant you a right of access onto it.
Next step. Identify the managing agency and ask about access points, seasonal use and any planned activity such as timber sales or grazing leases.
Based on: BLM National Surface Management Agency layer within the parcel's search envelope.
No subdivision or survey is referenced in the parcel record
CONTEXTThe cadastral record for this parcel does not name a platted subdivision or cite a Certificate of Survey.
Why it matters. That means we found no pointer to a recorded plat or survey — not that the land is unencumbered. Deeded access easements, utility easements and severed mineral rights are recorded against the deed and appear in no public map layer. A title search is the only way to see them.
Next step. Ask your title company for the full chain of title and any recorded easements. The state parcel viewer is at https://svc.mt.gov/msl/cadastral/?geocode=02245708202010000.
Based on: Montana Cadastral Framework parcel attributes: no subdivision name or COS reference.
A compilation of easements reported to the state. Participation is not universal and many private easements are absent. Boundaries are approximate and the easement's actual terms are never included — two easements of identical footprint can permit completely different development. The absence of an easement here is not evidence that a parcel is unencumbered; only a title search establishes that.
Section 11
Zoning, planning & permitting
Montana counties differ enormously. Rather than guess at a rule, we identify precisely which offices hold jurisdiction over this parcel.
This county administers zoning across the unincorporated county. Cascade County has adopted countywide zoning regulations (CCZR, adopted 2007) that apply to all unincorporated land outside the incorporated cities of Great Falls, Belt, Cascade, and Neihart; a Location/Conformance Permit is required for all structures and land-use changes countywide.
Building permits
Cascade County Planning & G.I.S. Department (issues Location/Conformance Permits under county Zoning Regulations)
Sanitation / septic
Cascade City-County Health Department (CCHD) Environmental Health
Floodplain administrator
Cascade County Planning & G.I.S. Department (Floodplain Regulations)
What we could not determine
- A parcel-level zoning district for this property. The county publishes a zoning layer, but we do not yet ingest it — the planning office can confirm the district today.
- Covenants, conditions and restrictions. Private covenants are recorded against the title rather than published by any agency, and they routinely restrict building far more tightly than county rules do.
- Whether any permit, variance or exemption has previously been issued for this parcel. That record sits with the county and is not published in bulk.
Cascade County zoning: administered countywide
CONTEXTThis county administers zoning across the unincorporated county. Cascade County has adopted countywide zoning regulations (CCZR, adopted 2007) that apply to all unincorporated land outside the incorporated cities of Great Falls, Belt, Cascade, and Neihart; a Location/Conformance Permit is required for all structures and land-use changes countywide.
Why it matters. Montana counties differ enormously. Zoning, building permits, subdivision review, sanitation review and floodplain administration are separate authorities that frequently do not share systems, and the absence of zoning does not mean the absence of rules.
Next step. Contact Cascade County Planning & G.I.S. Department at 406-454-6905 to confirm what applies to this specific parcel.
Based on: County authority registry, researched from primary county sources and verified 2026-08-14.
Nothing in this section is a zoning determination, a permit, or a legal opinion. County rules change, parcels sit in overlapping jurisdictions, and the authoritative answer for a specific property always comes from the office that administers it. We identify those offices so the call takes five minutes instead of an afternoon. County authority details researched and verified 2026-08-14.
Section 12
Utilities & infrastructure
Fire protection district
MONARCH RURAL FIRE SERVICE AREA
Montana State Library administrative boundaries.
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated county
Electric, gas and broadband service is not confirmed by territory mapping
A parcel falling inside a utility’s service territory does not establish that service currently reaches it. Rural extensions are quoted by the foot and can be the single largest line item in a build — routinely five figures, occasionally six. We do not infer availability from territory, and we do not yet ingest an authoritative statewide electric service-territory layer, so this section reports what we can verify and says plainly what it cannot.
Next step. Call the serving utility with the parcel geocode and ask for a service availability letter and an extension estimate to your intended building site — not to the property line.
Section 13
Nearby development
How isolated or developed this property actually is — which shapes utility cost, emergency response, and what it will feel like to live there.
Structures on parcel
0
Structures within ~1 mile
0
Nearest structure
—
Very few mapped structures within a mile
CONTEXTStructure and address mapping shows 0 structures within roughly a mile of this parcel.
Why it matters. Genuine isolation is what many buyers are looking for, and it has practical consequences: utility extension is priced by the foot, emergency response takes longer, road maintenance may be yours, and services like refuse collection and school bus routes may not reach you.
Next step. Price the utility extension and confirm emergency response coverage before assuming either.
Based on: Montana structures and addresses framework within a one-mile envelope.
Appendix
Sources and limitations
Every source consulted for this report, what it covers, and what it cannot tell you. The limitations are the part a professional reader checks first, so they are stated in full rather than buried.
Montana State Library, Montana Cadastral Framework
Coverage: Statewide, all 56 counties
Limitations. The cadastral framework is an assessment and taxation record, not a survey. Boundaries are mapped to assessor accuracy and routinely differ from a surveyed line by feet and occasionally by much more. Ownership reflects the last processed transfer, so a recent sale may not appear. It carries no easements, no covenants, and no legal-access information.
License: Montana State Library open data. Attribution expected; no fee or registration required.
U.S. Geological Survey, 3D Elevation Program (3DEP)
Coverage: Statewide. Best available resolution varies by collection — 1 m lidar where flown, 10 m or 30 m elsewhere.
Limitations. A bare-earth elevation surface. It does not know about fill, cut, existing grading, or anything built since the collection was flown. Slope computed from it describes the mapped landform, not a graded building pad, and cannot see a soft spot, a spring, or bedrock an inch below the surface.
License: U.S. Government work, public domain.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, SSURGO / Soil Data Access
Coverage: Nearly statewide. A small number of Montana survey areas remain unmapped or are mapped only at the coarser STATSGO scale.
Limitations. SSURGO is mapped for land-management planning at roughly 1:24,000. The smallest reliably mapped unit is a few acres, so a single building envelope can sit entirely inside a soil inclusion the map never shows. It is not a geotechnical investigation and not a percolation test, and NRCS says so directly. Its septic and construction ratings are screening ratings, not determinations.
License: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer
Coverage: Only where FEMA has mapped. Large areas of rural Montana are unmapped, which is not the same as being outside a floodplain.
Limitations. A regulatory insurance and floodplain-management map, not a hydrologic study of a specific parcel. Being outside a mapped high-risk zone is not an absence of flood risk — roughly a quarter of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk areas. Unmapped areas carry no determination at all. Local flooding from small drainages, alluvial fans, ice jams and irrigation infrastructure is frequently not modeled.
License: U.S. Government work, public domain.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory
Coverage: Statewide, with highly variable mapping vintage and source imagery scale.
Limitations. NWI is photo-interpreted from aerial imagery and is explicitly NOT a jurisdictional wetland determination. USFWS states there is no attempt to define the limits of federal or state jurisdiction. Small wetlands, narrow riparian strips and forested wetlands are systematically under-mapped. Only a delineation by a qualified consultant, and a jurisdictional call by the Army Corps, answers the regulatory question.
License: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Bureau of Land Management, National Surface Management Agency
Coverage: National. Federal, state and tribal surface management agency. Returns no features over private land, which is the correct answer rather than a gap.
Limitations. Surface management agency only. It does not resolve split-estate mineral ownership, does not carry lease status, and does not tell you whether a public parcel is legally accessible — public land touching a boundary is not a right of entry.
License: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Montana State Library / Montana Department of Transportation, transportation framework
Coverage: Statewide road centerlines.
Limitations. A centerline geometry and classification dataset. It carries no easement, no recorded right of way, no legal access status, and frequently no maintenance responsibility. A line on this layer reaching a parcel is evidence of a physical route, and is not evidence of a right to use it.
License: Montana State Library open data.
Montana State Library, structures and address framework
Coverage: Statewide, uneven by county.
Limitations. Structure points and address points are compiled from county sources at differing vintages. A missing structure does not mean vacant ground, and an address point is not proof a legal address has been assigned.
License: Montana State Library open data.
U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset
Coverage: Statewide streams, rivers and waterbodies at NHDPlus High Resolution.
Limitations. Mapped hydrography at 1:24,000. Intermittent and ephemeral channels are inconsistently captured, small irrigation ditches are often absent or indistinguishable from natural channels, and the mapped line does not establish an ordinary high-water mark, a setback, or a jurisdictional call.
License: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Montana State Library, administrative boundaries
Coverage: Statewide counties, incorporated places, and fire districts.
Limitations. City limits change by annexation, and the mapped line can lag the ordinance. Whether a parcel is inside city jurisdiction is determined by the municipality, not by this layer. Fire district mapping shows a service boundary and says nothing about response time, staffing, or whether a district will commit to a rural address.
License: Montana State Library open data.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Floodplain Management
Coverage: Varies. Montana's own effective SFHA compilation, which is a useful cross-check against the federal layer rather than a replacement for it.
Limitations. Montana floodplain regulation is administered locally by county and municipal floodplain administrators. Neither the state layer nor the FEMA layer substitutes for that administrator's written determination on a specific parcel.
Montana State Library, conservation easements by county
Coverage: Montana-specific and spatially queryable. Preferred over the national NCED, whose public service rejects geometry queries.
Limitations. A compilation of easements reported to the state. Participation is not universal and many private easements are absent. Boundaries are approximate and the easement's actual terms are never included — two easements of identical footprint can permit completely different development. The absence of an easement here is not evidence that a parcel is unencumbered; only a title search establishes that.
License: Montana State Library open data; underlying terms vary by easement holder.
Montana DNRC — Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment raster layers
Coverage: Statewide, all 56 counties, 30 m resolution.
Limitations. Finalized 20 December 2019 from LANDFIRE Remap 2016 with disturbance updates through 2019, so vegetation that has burned, been logged or been thinned since then is not reflected — on a landscape where a single season can change a parcel completely, this is the most important caveat in the section. Burn probability and flame length are published as CLASSES, not as a percentile and a number of feet, so those are reported as classes with DNRC's own published ranges and nothing is interpolated. At 30 m a pixel is roughly a quarter acre, which cannot resolve a driveway, a defensible-space treatment, or an individual structure. Above all this describes the landscape, not a building: post-fire research consistently finds survival is driven by the structure itself and the first hundred feet around it, none of which is visible in a fuel model.
License: Montana state geospatial data, published for public use.
National Interagency Fire Center — Interagency Fire Perimeter History
Coverage: National, historical through the most recent completed season.
Limitations. A compilation of perimeters reported by many agencies, so the same fire can appear several times under different records — counts here are deduplicated by incident name and year, which is effective but not infallible. Coverage of small and older fires is materially incomplete, and absence of a perimeter is not evidence a fire did not occur. Perimeters record where fire reached, not severity within the burn: land inside a perimeter may be untouched, lightly burned or completely consumed. Past fire is also not a straightforward predictor — recently burned ground can carry less fuel than its unburned neighbor.
License: US federal open data.
Montana State Library, Montana Cadastral Framework — retrieved September 17, 2026
U.S. Geological Survey, 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) — retrieved September 17, 2026
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, SSURGO / Soil Data Access — retrieved September 17, 2026
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer — retrieved September 17, 2026
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory — retrieved September 17, 2026
What this report is, and is not
Montana Build Report organizes available public data to help identify issues worth investigating. It does not replace site inspections, title work, surveying, engineering, permitting or professional due diligence.
It is not legal advice, land surveying, title research, engineering, geotechnical analysis, a wetland delineation, a septic approval, a zoning determination, or a building permit — and it is not a guarantee that this property can or cannot be built upon.
Prepared by Montana Build Report · Data accessed September 17, 2026